Hi Horse, Rick, Bodvar, Todd and focs,
HORSE:
<<<... we need to ask (or
remind) ourselves of what it is we are talking about. A Giant in MoQ
terms is (simply put)
some pattern of values created by Social value of which a City is but
one instance.
A Giant can be a University or a Corporation or a Government or whatever
Social pattern
utilises biological patterns for its own ends. >>>
I sort of took this for granted. Thanks Horse for spelling it out.
Otherwise we could end up having pointless arguments.
===========================
> RICK:
> I have a problem with [Jonathan's]> "...understand the Giant's
decisions to take the
> Stock
> > Market up or down..." I don't think the Giant makes "decisions"...
not
> in any obvious sense. I'll try to explain...
> I remember in a religious philosophy class I once took we're taught
> (someone's?) old distinction between NATURAL and ARTIFICIAL Evils.
> Natural ones were things likes floods ands tornados(from nature)...
> Artificial ones were things like murder, crimes (man-made). ...
That's a distinction that has always bothered me. The Aswan of Hoover
Dam is obviously man-made, but why is a beaver's dam (natural). The
assumption of man against nature is ingrained in our culture; this may
in part explain some of the environmental problems we create for
ourselves.
It's rather strange that we call man's creations "artificial" , as if
they aren't real. Despite this strangeness, I do find that this Natural
vs. Artificial dualism has a somewhat familiar smell!
> And I remember
> that it was suggested that there was a third category SOCIAL evils...
things
> like poverty, homelessness.... Social evils aren't caused by nature...
but
> their not the specific will of any one person (or group of
persons). ----
So the dualism fails!
> This is what I mean.... no one "decides" that the stock market will go
up or
> down (except maybe Alan Greenspan)... it just happens as a byproduct
of the
> decisions of individuals (and groups of individuals)... kind of like
Adam
> Smith's Invisible Hand....
Let's edit out that prejorative word "just", and while we're at it,
change BYproduct
to product. These just downplay the issue; the behaviour of groups can
be just waved away like that. Just ask any self respecting Games
theorist.
> I think an interesting question to try and answer would be, "Does the
Giant
> have a WILL of it own?"
Thanks Rick, I think that this wording captures the essence of what I
asked in the first place. If we're going to get anywhere this month, we
have to seriously tackle this question.
==================
BODVAR
<<<I think it's misleading to formulate the topic question this way
...the
eternal "consciousness" confusion! ...>>>>
Bo, what's all this *my* MOQ? I thought we were talking about Pirsig's
MOQ. Do you really have your own version? If so, you really need to do a
better job of explaining it!
<<<...According to my MOQ all
static levels are levels of experience, and my sense of concistency
tells me that Q-intellect can't be a leap into this enlightened state
intellect pompously has allotted itself. Q-intellect is merely another
static experience.>>>
Bodvar, either I am too thick to understand you, or what you write is
nonsense. Why do you persists with this "Q-intellect"? Are you talking
about intellect as most people understand it, or are you talking about
something else? In either case, the question of intellect didn't arise
in the questions I formulated, nor in Rick's rephrased question. Now
let's get back to those.
BODVAR continued:
<<<We ARE the Giant in our capacity as social beings, and
consequently know its intention when we focus on that level,
whether it is as members of a bird-spotting club, citizens of a big
city or as Israelis ....or Norwegian.>>>
Do you really know the intentions of the Norwegian nation? Do you know
the election results before the votes are counted? This appears similar
to Rick's "it just happens as a byproduct of the decisions of
individuals ..." If that's all Social patterns are, then Pirsig's whole
idea of higher level patterns becomes pointless. As I understand it, the
patterns of the higher level are not just the sum of the lower level
components, but TRANSCEND the lower level.
====================
TODD
<<< [I] think that the giant is yet
evolving into self awareness, but I would also question how much is an
individual conscious of his/her own behavior most of the time?>>>
First Todd, thanks for the great topic. I hope we live up to the
challenge.
Regarding your post, in one sentence, you hit on something very
important. We THINK we know ourselves, yet this is sometimes an illusion
and we find ourselves behaving in unexpected ways. Maybe the same can be
said of society.
Thanks to eveyone who read all this,
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:21 BST